Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 721 - 740
of 1,443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2012, 11:07 am
First, the approach taken in Canadian Solar stands in sharp contrast to the one taken by the United States Supreme Court in Morrison v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 6:51 am
Cir. 2002) (“Obtaining such a patent is a meaningful contact with the United States; it requires a patentee purposefully to avail him or herself of a significant benefit of United States law. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 7:09 am
As the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Taylor v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 12:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 10:22 am
Way back in 1990, the Supreme Court decided Taylor v. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 12:05 pm
Legislative intent controls in applying personnel rules providing for the liquidation of sick leave accruals upon separation from serviceCounty of Broome v Badger, 2008 NY Slip Op 08230, decided on October 30, 2008, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentInitially the Broom County Legislature adopted a personnel rule setting out the payment that would be made to administrative employees [i.e., unrepresented personnel within the meaning of the Taylor Law] for unused sick time as… [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 11:28 pm
Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011) (citando a United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Just one week before, however, we had discussed Rescuecom v Google (...), a case where the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit come to the opposite conclusion on the exact same facts. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
Courts in New York State have consistently recognized the importance of using progressive discipline.Rulings by the New York State Supreme Court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, suggest an employer’s in assigning severe penalties for certain “first offenses” may not survive judicial review. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 4:37 pm
There is a need for more patent quality in SEPs" he stated. [read post]
1 Nov 2024, 6:08 am
In Goldwater v. [read post]
19 Aug 2006, 8:53 am
Briefs available here.In the news, a Kansas federal district court declared a mistrial in United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
In contrast, employees in a collective bargaining unit within the meaning of the Taylor Law,[13]regardless of their holding “permanent appointment” or otherwise, are typically entitled to many, if not all, the rights and benefits established through collective bargaining and set out in a collective bargaining agreement. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
In contrast, employees in a collective bargaining unit within the meaning of the Taylor Law,[13]regardless of their holding “permanent appointment” or otherwise, are typically entitled to many, if not all, the rights and benefits established through collective bargaining and set out in a collective bargaining agreement. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
In the criminal case United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 11:42 am
The Court ruled 6-3 on March 25 in Young v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 4:05 am
As to actual confusion, since Shanghai has not exported any massage apparatus to the United States, "there has been no opportunity for actual, or potential, confusion to occur. [read post]
15 May 2008, 8:24 am
Taylor (CVSG 1/14/2008) (Akin Gump for petitioner) (settling FMLA claims) No. 07-543, AT&T v. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm
Taylor, 192 N.Y. 398 (1908); State v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 8:45 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
